Typhoon Mindulle (2021), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed asC-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top23% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk)20:18, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Rachid Ghanimi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk)09:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,Shmego!Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at theArticles for creation help desk. If you have anyother questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at theTeahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!Greenman (talk)09:07, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SportingFlyer was:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

No significant secondary sources in the article, probably not notable anyways since he hasn't appeared in a professional match.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Jonathan Gomes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SportingFlyerT·C14:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SportingFlyer was:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Doesn't quite passWP:GNG yet.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Anders Bordoy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SportingFlyerT·C14:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mQwerfjkl (bot). I haveautomatically detected thatthis edit performed by you, on the pageDivine Teah, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL andmissing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix |Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is afalse positive, you canreport it to my operator.Thanks,Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk)17:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Oltrepier were:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported byreliable sources.Reliable sources are required so that information can beverified. If you need help with referencing, please seeReferencing for beginners andCiting sources.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

There's still so much work to do about the lack ofsignificant coverage: you should avoid using portals like Transfermarkt and SofaScore, since they contain mostly user-generated content, and replace them with (for example) articles from Moroccan and/or African media who do mention Ghanimi extensively, either in match reports or in dedicated articles.Try taking a look at theproposed lay-out for player bios, as well!

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Rachid Ghanimi and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Oltrepier (talk)16:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission toArticles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vanderwaalforces was:

This submission's references do not show that the subjectqualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not showsignificant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject inpublished,reliable,secondary sources that areindependent of the subject (see theguidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (seetechnical help and learn aboutmistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmitafter they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go toDraft:Anders Bordoy and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned andmay be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced anyuntoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at theArticles for creation help desk, on thereviewer's talk page or useWikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Vanderwaalforces (talk)09:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleRachid Ghanimi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachid Ghanimi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Anwegmann (talk)03:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleAlenga Charles is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alenga Charles until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Anwegmann (talk)03:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shmego, I have restored the redirect fromDraft:Tropical Storm Karl (2022) to the 2022 AHS article. While you have added a couple sentences of information, the draft still doesn't contain more information than the existing storm subsection in the season article. I would suggest that you add depth to the season article section rather than reviving this draft again.2022 Atlantic hurricane season#Tropical Storm Karl is, I believe, the best place to tell the story of this tropical storm. Cheers.Drdpw (talk)22:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you let me know, and I do understand what you mean. I figured that a storm with >$75 million in damages and 3 deaths deserves an article. However, I do understand where you are coming from and unless information is resurfaced, I will most likely leave the draft as it is.

Regards,Shmego (talk)13:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Bret (2023), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

S0091 (talk)16:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Shmego! Hope you're having a good summer so far. I wanted to check what aspect of tropical cyclones you're most interested in, and if you need any help from someone who's been here for a while. Cheers ♫Hurricanehink (talk)19:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been interested in tropical cyclones since 2021, so not as long as some other experienced editors. When it comes to storms, I'm really interested in impacts caused by them, whether they are major impacts or minor ones. I live in an area of the US that is occasionally hit by storms, but almost always by the remnants, never a truly tropical system, so I like to see what storms do to impact areas. Of course i also like to track them, but seeing the damage caused by these storms has always interested me. I don't think I need any help at this moment, but thanks for checking.

Regards,Shmego (talk)19:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I can relate. I grew up in New Jersey, and there very few actual tropical systems hitting us. Even Sandy was post-tropical. I don't know where you're from other than the US, but, I wanted to point out that we have lists of tropical cyclones in a lot of the states. For example, I wroteList of New Jersey hurricanes, my home state, and probably need to do more work on it tbh. So just throwing it out there, just about every state will eventually have its own "List of X hurricanes". Even Wisconsin has one right now. And I find these lists really interesting and fun to do, because it uncovers the climatology and history for a certain area. Places like Florida get hurricanes all the time. But Nevada? Michigan? Sometimes, and I hope they eventually gets lists as well. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)20:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. At least one hurricane has effected every US state, even Washington and Oregon got the remnants of a Pacific typhoon, and I think Wyoming got impacted by Hurricane Kathleen. I live in Pennsylvania so we have a similar situation, extratropical systems are all we get, like Ida in 2021. Creating lists of hurricanes to impact areas does seem like a fun process, you learn a lot and it seems pretty simple.Shmego (talk)18:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, and theList of Pennsylvania hurricanes is already started! It's just a bit of a mess, lol. Some of the biggest things missing are climatology (how often is the state hit, the earliest and latest), a table with the deadliest storms, and in general more information. Most of it is basic stuff like "A tropical storm caused winds of 65 km/h", which doesn't help much for a variety of reasons. Pennsylvania uses mph (not knots or km/h). Also it doesn't say what the storm did. And that's the fun part about writing these articles, figuring out which storms were the baddies. Now, Wikipedia probably has articles for the vast majority of storms affecting the state over the last century, so that should be fairly easy expanding on that, and adding other storms that affected the state but aren't on the list. Lastly, it might be nice to have a section likethis where it shows the number of storms by month, and over time. I recently worked on California hurricanes, so it's fresh on my mind. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)18:52, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I will certainly expand that one, the conversions to mph are certainly necessary, that would be annoying for someone to read.Shmego (talk)19:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! That's a huge help. In the long term, it would be great if every state had an article where everything was in the correct units, was cited, and had the appropriate amount of info for each storm. Keep up the good work. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)19:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mAnwegmann. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person onDZ Harmon, but you didn't support your changes with acitation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerninghow we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message onmy talk page.Please also make sure that you use proper formatting when adding new information in infoboxes.Anwegmann (talk)22:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but there is no reliable source on it. DZ Harmon signed with Entente, a 5th division club that doesn't have a famous website. Instagram was the only place to find it, and if you look at pictures of preseason games, Harmon is there. While Instagram isn't a reliable source, Harmon plays for Entente.

Regards,Shmego (talk)22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then put the link to the Instagram post in the edit summary. It doesn't need to be a formal in-text citation, but you do need to show where you got the information.Anwegmann (talk)22:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. If you click on the reference, it takes you straight to the post where Harmon is aanounced.Shmego (talk)22:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that you need to explain your edits, even if they don't come from reliable sources. So put the url to the Instagram post in the edit summary with, for example, the explanation you gave me here. Without that, you're just adding and subtracting teams from pages at will. In other words, just use the edit summary to explain yourself and where you got the information. That's all.Anwegmann (talk)23:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I see. Thank you for explaining and I apologize for the confusion I may have caused.

Regards,Shmego (talk)23:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thank you for your work on here.Anwegmann (talk)23:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed atDraft:Tropical Storm Pilar (2023). Thanks!Robert McClenon (talk)04:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Storm Pilar (2023), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed asStart-Class, which is recorded on itstalk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as theydevelop over time. You may like to take a look at thegrading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can nowcreate articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work toArticles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at thehelp desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option tocreate articles yourself without posting a request toArticles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please considerleaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk)04:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to see that article get some love! I just wanted to point out a potentially useful source -the National Climatic Data Center - that has info back to like 1994, with storm summaries for each event. Just be sure that the source actually mentions the storm in question. Hope that helps! ♫Hurricanehink (talk)16:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! I'm up to late 2010s, then I'll add the other sections you mentioned a while back, mainly going through, making sure everything is sources and informs the reader of damage caused and records broken. I will be sure to take a look at that source!

Regards,Shmego (talk)16:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Take your time, and focus on the important storms first, before you worry about the minor storms. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)17:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe that the Pennyslvania Hurricanes article is completed. I have added the table of storms by month, as well as the deadliest storms section. All storms now have at least one reference to back them up, and the lead has been expanded. I'd say it looks pretty good.Shmego (talk)21:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Thanks for the work so far, but you probably still need to do more. All of the storms listed before 1950 have extremely basic descriptions. Could you replace them with individual accounts? Also, I'm not sure if you got all of the storms, and for some of the storms, you have very basic descriptions. TakeHurricane Agnes for example. You'd have no idea it was a bad storm for the state based on the narrative, but it caused $2.3 billion in damage in the state, and its description is shorter than Floyd. Try adding damage totals, at the least, and also provide more information for the bigger storms. And were there really no storms since 2022? What about Ophelia? ♫Hurricanehink (talk)21:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shmego. Thank you for your work onGreg Monroe (soccer). Another editor,Demt1298, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing this article for Wikipedia. I have marked it reviewed

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Demt1298}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Demt1298 (talk)23:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shmego. Thank you for your work onJackson Wälti. Another editor,Demt1298, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank You for writing this article for Wikipedia. I have marked it reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Demt1298}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Demt1298 (talk)15:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shmego. Thank you for your work onJacob Randolph. Another editor,Demt1298, has reviewed it as part ofnew pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for writing this article for Wikipedia. I have marked it reviewed.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with{{Re|Demt1298}}.(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Demt1298 (talk)15:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to put thealternate user template on the other user page, but yes that should be fine, as long as you're not using both accounts to get around rules, like voting twice. As for Kirk, it'll depend how much impacts Europe, but between the hurricane season and the European windstorm season, they should be able to cover the impacts that'll likely occur. But feel free to find additional information if you'd like. ♫Hurricanehink (talk)17:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how you helped expandTropical Storm Lester (2022) andHurricane Norma (2023), as you claim on your user page? You haven't made a single edit to the first page and barely edited the second. I wrote99% of the former and83.2% of the latter.JayTee⛈️03:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also why do you claim credit for helping createTropical Storm Harold? I wrote and published that article by myself and as far as I can tell you've never evenedited the article.JayTee⛈️04:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I have confused myself quite a bit, so I'm most likely going to create a section for storms I've carefully followed. I'd much prefer you minded your own business rather than coming in here and criticize me for things in my own page. I haven't been active recently and something on my list was to go through the sections of my page.Shmego2 (talk)23:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your confusion. If you didn't help create or significantly contribute to a storm's article, then you shouldn't claim credit for it. I'm not criticizing you, I'm calling you out for claiming credit for other editors' work and just plain lying on your user page. I worked hard on Lester, Norma and Harold and it's frustrating to see someone who did little to nothing to help claiming credit for that work. These articles shouldn't have been on your user page in the first place and should be removed promptly. Also ping me when you respond to one of my messages.JayTee⛈️17:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shmego2 Pinging your alt account since you responded with that one.JayTee⛈️17:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayTee32 Look can you accept my apology and get on with it? Yes I'm in the wrong, I was confused because I thought I had made notable edits on those articles but was incorrect. I can confirm I did research on these storms, but I guess I never edited them. like I said, I removed them and I again apologize.Shmego2 (talk)22:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shmego, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created,Max Glasser, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Glasser.

Deletiondiscussions usually run for seven days and arenot votes.Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions isnotability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Anwegmann}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Anwegmann (talk)02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shmego, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created,Miche-Naider Chéry, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miche-Naider Chéry.

Deletiondiscussions usually run for seven days and arenot votes.Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions isnotability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Anwegmann}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Anwegmann (talk)02:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleGreg Monroe (soccer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Monroe (soccer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Anwegmann (talk)02:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articleJacob Randolph is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according toWikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should bedeleted.

The article will be discussed atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Randolph until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Anwegmann (talk)02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Shmego, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created,Jake Lent-Koop, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jake Lent-Koop.

Deletiondiscussions usually run for seven days and arenot votes.Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions isnotability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with{{Re|Anwegmann}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via thePage Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Anwegmann (talk)03:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Shmego. Regarding article suggestions, there are a ton of Atlantic hurricane articles that need work, so more than others, so I'll give you a few different suggestions with certain types of information needed:

• Tropical Storm Alberto (1994) - the only article in the 1994 season that is not a good article, it was also Georgia's costliest disaster (until surpassed by Hurricane Helene), and while the article does a great job with the met history and impacts, the longer term aftermath is lacking. That will be a problem for most retired storm articles, the aftermath, and the depth of information, and some articles need more info than others, but I started with Alberto since only one section is needed
• Hurricane Danny (1997) - a former featured article, due to a lack of enough sources. The article was written in 2007, and a lot more information sources have become available online.
• Tropical Storm Alex (2022) - a weak tropical storm/flood event, needs preps to be split off, and more info all around.
• Tropical Storm Ophelia (2023) - a tropical storm that only affected the east coast of the United States
• Hurricane Idalia - as crazy as it sounds, Idalia only caused $3.6 billion in damage. A lot of the article is well-sourced, just not the best organized. Also, there's definitely more information out there, but it's a doable article for a recent Florida major hurricane landfall
• Tropical Storm Alberto (2024) - no time but the present! The Mexico section is far too short for a tropical storm hitting Mexico in the 21st century, and you may have to use Google translate a lot.

So here's a few ideas for some articles that could be doable. If one stands out to you, let me know, and I can help steer you toward finishing the article. Thanks for reaching out! ♫Hurricanehink (talk)04:18, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC